SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 631

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
DUMAR CHAND MAHTO – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE PR SECRETARY DEPTT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY – Respondent
WPC 2078 / 2022



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2078 of 2022 -----

Dumar Chand Mahto, S/o Dular Chand Mahto, R/o village Barkisidhawara, P.O & P.S. -Chatro Chatti, District Bokaro ....Petitioner(s).

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S-Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi.

2. Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education &

Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building Dhurwa, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, having its office at P.O., P.S. &

District- Bokaro.

4. The District Education Officer, Bokaro, having its office at P.O., P.S.

& District- Bokaro

5. National Council for Teachers Education through its Member Secretary, having office at G-7, Sector-10, Dwarka, P.O & P.S.-

Dwarka, Near Metro Station, New Delhi, Dist- New Delhi Respondent(s).

------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate For the State : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV For the Resp-NCTE : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Anshuman Mishra, Advocate …......

16/ 17.02.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

i. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing and setting aside the order dated 12.02.2022 (Annexure-8) as contained in memo no 266 issued under the signature of respondent no.4 (District Education Officer) whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been relieved from his services on the ground that the petitioner does not possess requisite qualification ie B.Ed degree as per the service rules.

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release the salary of the petitioner with suitable interest, who was working on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), subject- Economics, posted at Upgraded High School, Nawadih, Bokaro w.e.f January, 2020 till 11.2.2022.

2. The petitioner applied for the post of TGT (Trained Graduate Teacher) in Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission’s vide advertisement No. 21/2016 and was appointed as a TGT (Economics) on 06.07.2019 and joined the Upgraded High School, Gunjadih on 12.07.2019. The petitioner’s salary was stopped from January 2020. On 10.08.2021, he received a show-cause notice questioning his B.Ed (Special Education) degree, claiming that it did not meet the eligibility criteria for appointment. The petitioner replied, clarifying that his degree is recognized by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), and is equivalent to a general B.Ed. After that the petitioner was relieved from service on 12.02.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite submitting the reply to the show cause, the petitioner was not given an opportunity for a personal hearing. The office order dated 12.02.2022 by District Education Officer directing that the petitioner to be relieved from his services was communicated to him on 15.02.2022. He further submits that the District Education Officer was not the competent authority to issue the relieving order, and the termination was made without following due procedure or departmental rules. He also submits that the action of the respondents in not paying his salary for more than two years, and then terminating him is arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that he was never given a proper hearing and his defense was not considered.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top